Governing Body 2.0

by drew sagan 65 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  drew sagan

  I borrow the phrase GB 2.0 from AllTimeJeff, who used it yesterday in the post about Theodore Jaracz's death.

  I was interested in starting a thread that addresses the new leadership regime that has emerged within the WTS, especially in light of changes (albeit mundane) the organization has undertaken over the past 15 years or so. While few of us have had close contact with the men in charge, changes they have made in recent years surly reflect a definable leadership style. It also reveals a little bit about how they view the organization and its future.

  From what I can put together, it seems that there a few obvious things to note.

  - 1999 seems to be the sea change year in terms of GB appointment and might be seen sybolically as a turning point in terms of leadership for the group. A majority of members on the GB were appointed between 1999 and 2005. The only member left from the 70's is John Barr. Gerrit Losch was a rare mid-90s appointment.

  - There must have been a consensus within the GB 2.0 that saw the level of activity demanded by the Watchtower in years past as excessive (or at least not consistent with the times). They cut the in home book study, shortened the public talk, and cut back on supplied reading material. While many here speculated that some of this was do to costs (which is a real possibility), the fact that meetings were included in the cut backs reveals that one motive was to demand less of the membership.

  - The change in tone and substance within the publications, especially since the 1990s, reveals a move towards truncation of argumentation regarding complex doctrinal matters. Just compare the Knowledge book with the You Can Live Forever on Paradise Earth book (you could also add the Truth book to the mix). While What Does the Bible Really Teach? did eventually reintroduce some of the doctrine that was lacking in the Knowledge book, it completely excluded any mention of the faithful and discrete slave. In short, information regarding doctrine has become simplified in recent years. It appears that every new book released by the Watchtower focuses less and less on doctrines. This may not be apparent when comparing books year to year, but when compared over the course of decades the trend becomes obvious.

  - The role of prophecy is diminishing, with more of a focus on lifestyle. The latest book on Jeremiah as well as the one on the minor prophets released a few years ago show a significant shift away from understanding prophecy in terms of having fulfillment in modern times. Rather than using these prophetic books as a way to expand on the end times narrative, they instead focusing on coping with what seems to be an extended period of waiting for the end. In this way the books reveal that the current leadership definitely sees signs of "armageddon anxiety" among the membership. While the organization used to reinvigorate its members with exciting new explantations of prophetic fulfillment, the current brand of rhetoric sees no role for such speculations. Instead they focus on qualities such as "endurance" and "patience". The role of end times still is important, but not in the sense of a being a dominating narrative.

  Some may disagree with my final conclusion, but to me it appears that the organization is actually becoming less confrontational in its style and approach. While the new leadership continues to declare an "us verses them" narrative built around claims of exclusivity, it has come to emphasize other aspects that tend to be more mainstream. I believe the organization is trending towards emphasis of morality and lifestyle choices, which subsequently means a de-emphasizing of prophetic interpretations and doctrinal discourse. This is not an absolute trend, and there is some overlap in terms of experience. Some of the older members may still value prophecy more, but the younger members are likely to adopt the newer "lifestyle" as presented by the organization.

  I also tend to think that major changes will not take place. The current leadership tends to view the model established by the followers of Knorr and Franz as a sound one that will only need tweaked as time progresses (think changes to theocratic ministry school, meetings, magazines, ect.). Without a dominant eccentric to lead the pack, I think the organization is likely to continue on a path towards adopting moderate changes that do not substantially change the organization.

  Your thoughts?
• 

  sd-7

  This moment is a lot like that scene from "Batman Returns" where the Penguin is in the Hall of Records writing down the names of children, supposedly trying to locate his birth parents. Most people think nothing of it, but Batman, sitting in the Batmobile, says, "I think he knows who his parents are. There's something else."

  The speed of the changes is frankly unlike anything I recall in my 20 years growing up in the religion. I don't buy that all of it is just minor shifts. Their subtlety is apparent, and I think most of the implications you suggest are pretty valid. But I still think there's something going on here. Exactly what, I don't know. Maybe you're right, and the machine will just continue as it always has. I'm just not that convinced. The collective Body is closing its fist, and I can't see what's in its palm. But I feel there is a larger plan, even if the Body themselves can't consciously see it.
• 

  jehovahsheep

  thanks for your post-i noticed the change during my years 1990-2006.i dont believe their presumptious will go unpunished by god.they are not going to just continue on into the night.
• 

  lepermessiah

  As a former elder for much of that period, I felt that the organization became even more authoritarian and uncaring about the rank-and-file since 1999 when I became an elder, while making "streamlining" moves that made it appear more efficient and less of a burden on the members.I think it was all done for legal protection and cost-cutting, having nothing to do with compassion toward the congregations.

  However, the tone of the teachings puts more emphasis on the F&D Slave more than ever, IMO. You cant read an article without them being mentioned. Its all about the 3 P's - politics, procedure, and protocol. Love, justice, mercy, etc.......not important in JW land.
• 

  darth frosty

  Just to add my 2 cents remember that the GB as we know it did not come into existance till the '70's.
• 

  drew sagan

  lepermessiah,

  You are correct in your belief that emphasis on the Faithful and Discreet Slave has grown over the years. The Watchtower CD-ROM gives some insight into this. Running a generic search on the phrase "Faithful and Discrete Slave" in the program reveals that use of the phrase has been increasing each decade since 1970. Here are some averages:

  Year Range / Average

  00-09 / 27
  90-99 / 25.7 80-89 / 17.3 70-79 / 11.4 60-69 / 20.5 50-59 / 18.7

  Notice that from 50-69 the numbers were significantly higher than those taken from the 1970s. While I have no theory as to why this occured, trends since 1970 are fairly clear. The gap between the 90s is rather small, while both are more significant than usage in the 1980s.

  There are, however, problems with a general analysis like this. While it is eaisly confirmed that the F&DS phrase is being used more often, other phrases and terms may have been more popular in decades past. There also is the problem of bias. Those of us who left the Watchtower were probably more likely to believe that the group was continuously becoming more authoritarian because we personally began to notice those tendencies. However, the organization may have been just as bad at other times, but because we were more committed to the group such problems escaped our attention.
• 

  neverendingjourney

  In short, information regarding doctrine has become simplified in recent years

  Simple doctrine for simple minds.

  I'll address your larger point shortly, but I want to throw in an anecdote to illustrate my simple-minds point.

  The other night I had dinner with a JW. I was waiting for her inside the restaurant at the bar. She called for me to go meet her outside. When I saw her she was looking ridiculous "smoking" a black and mild cigarette. It was obvious she wasn't inhaling it. I grabbed the cigarette from her, took a deep breath, and puffed it out. She understood what I was getting at, put the cigarette out and went inside.

  We discussed a variety of topics over dinner. It was clear that, in addition to her "smoking" habit, she was leading a double life in other ways. She then got on the topic of religion and asked me if I missed the meetings. I told her I've never been happier in my life. She replied that she still "loved Jehovah" but had done too many bad things in her life to deserve his love. I told her that her depression was caused by the guilt she was carrying around. She then proceeded to attack me along the lines of "how could you forget everything you learned about Jehovah?" I told her Jehovah was a fairy tale, like Santa Clause or the Tooth Fairy.

  My response clearly upset her. The following is a paraphrase of what followed:

  "What about everything that's going on? The world is getting worse."

  "No it's not. It's getting better. People are living longer, healthier lives than ever before. One-hundred years ago the average life span was much shorter."

  "That's not true. People lived an average of 120 years back then. Life spans are getting shorter."

  [Confused look on my face] "Stop being so negative. Think of how lucky you are. You were born in the richest country in the world [United States]. You could have just as easily been born in sub-Saharan Africa and starved to death as a toddler."

  "You're wrong. The richest country in the world is Mexico. You don't know what you're talking about."

  [Stunned expression on my face again] "Okay. I spent eight years in college and I somehow missed the fact that Mexico is the richest country in the world. That must explain why so many illegal immigrants leave the richest country in the world to come to our country every year. I'm sorry."

  "Now you're just mocking me. I don't know why I'm arguing with you. You don't listen and you have no idea what you're talking about."

  [Change of subject]

  I wish I could say she's somehow an exception, but most of my conversations with JWs have revealed a shocking ignorance of the world in which they live. Critical thinking is pushed aside. Many of them just make up facts that support the Society's position. Granted, she is an example of a JW more on the ignorant side of the spectrum, but her example is typical, unfortunately.

  Back to your larger point. The "simplification" of doctrine, if you will, follows the change in leaderships. Fred Franz filled in as the primary theologian for the religion for 30+ years. He had a high IQ with an equally vibrant imagination. After the GB coup of the early 70s, men were chosen for top leadership based on loyalty, not capacity, as confirmed by Ray Franz in COC. What has resulted in GB 2.0 is a bunch of brainwashed yes-men with an extreme loyalty to the core of JW doctrine, but who are not necessarily the most qualified to lead such a large religion.

  Nobody on the GB appears to be capable of inheriting Freddy's mantle as chief theologian, so they're not bothering with that anymore. Why should they? Their membership doesn't require it of them. Those intelligent enough to see the doctrinal flaws have already left or have been purged. So long as they continue to recruit from the third world, they will post insignificant increases year after year to cover up the steady exit of your more independent-minded JWs.
• 

  frigginconfused

  The role of prophecy is diminishing, with more of a focus on lifestyle. The latest book on Jeremiah as well as the one on the minor prophets released a few years ago show a significant shift away from understanding prophecy in terms of having fulfillment in modern times. Rather than using these prophetic books as a way to expand on the end times narrative, they instead focusing on coping with what seems to be an extended period of waiting for the end. In this way the books reveal that the current leadership definitely sees signs of "armageddon anxiety" among the membership. While the organization used to reinvigorate its members with exciting new explantations of prophetic fulfillment, the current brand of rhetoric sees no role for such speculations. Instead they focus on qualities such as "endurance" and "patience". The role of end times still is important, but not in the sense of a being a dominating narrative.

  I LOVE THIS!!!!!!!!!!! If this kind of thing keeps coming then Gods true religion can finally be born.

  Satans hold on this oganization is slipping. I wish to see more activity on this forum. Nows the time to topple the giant. We must keep on encouraging logical thought.
• 

  drew sagan

  Nobody on the GB appears to be capable of inheriting Freddy's mantle as chief theologian, so they're not bothering with that anymore. Why should they? Their membership doesn't require it of them.

  You are correct. GB 2.0 is primarily interested in maintaining the status quo and is not interested in significant changes or major organizational shifts. Instead they continue to maintain what they have inherited. I would imagine that each of them feels a strong responsibility to those larger figures in the organization's past (Franz and Knorr especially).

  I do find it interesting that the Governing Body established in the 1970s waited until the mid 1990s before it started to appoint new members. In fact, it may be worth noting that new Governing Body members began to be appointed only after the generation doctrine began to be dismantled. It seems as though GB 1.0 was holding out all those years, actually believing that a new era of leadership was not going to be necessary. Then comes the 1990s, the generation doctrine is gone, and new members to the body begin to be appointed.

  I understand where you are coming from with your "simple minds" idea neverendingjourney, however, I typically don't like to overgeneralize these things. I do agree that the organization appeals to individuals who have a tendency to want concise and simple answers about how the world functions (most proponents of millennialism typically do). However, I think the reasons for people's involvement with groups like the JWs tend to stem from a variety of factors instead of just one (family influences, history, personal choice, peer pressure, hope, fear, ect).

  A good (and free) book that breaks down some of these factors can be found at: http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~altemey/
• 

  Mickey mouse

  I do find it interesting that the Governing Body established in the 1970s waited until the mid 1990s before it started to appoint new members. In fact, it may be worth noting that new Governing Body members began to be appointed only after the generation doctrine began to be dismantled. It seems as though GB 1.0 was holding out all those years, actually believing that a new era of leadership was not going to be necessary. Then comes the 1990s, the generation doctrine is gone, and new members to the body begin to be appointed.

  Good observations and I agree entirely. Each generation of GB cares not about the long term ramifications of the changes they make. They don't believe they will have successors so why should they?